SPECIES NAME AND GROUP DESIGNATION

Common Name and Scientific Name:

bobcat (Lynx rufus)

Status:

State: None

Federal: None

GROUP DESIGNATION AND RATIONALE

Group 2

The bobcat is widespread throughout the Plan Area. This species requires large expanses of relatively undisturbed brushy and rocky habitats near springs or other perennial water sources. In addition to needing large habitat blocks, a key factor for conservation of the bobcat in the Plan Area is the provision of adequate dispersal and movement habitat, especially at potential bottleneck areas. Wildlife crossings of major roadways will need to be designed to accommodate bobcats. Use of key movement areas will need to be monitored to ensure that bobcats are safely using these areas.

SPECIES CONSERVATION OBJECTIVES

The species-specific conservation objectives developed for this species are based upon the best available scientific information at the time of MSHCP preparation. Pursuant to Section 5.0 which includes Management, Monitoring and the Adaptive Management Program, the MSHCP's mitigation requirements will be monitored and analyzed to determine if they are producing the desired result. Based upon this information, the following species-specific conservation objectives will be adjusted if appropriate, as new information is gathered during Plan implementation. The Adaptive Management Program will be used to identify alternative strategies for meeting the MSHCP's general biological goals and objectives and, if necessary, adjusting future conservation strategies according to the information received.

Objective 1

Include within the MSHCP Conservation Area 469,063 acres (57 percent) of suitable habitat in the Plan Area. Key conservation areas comprising large contiguous habitat blocks include the Santa Rosa Plateau-Santa Ana Mountains, Agua Tibia Wilderness-Palomar Mountains, Vail Lake-Wilson Valley-Aguanga, Anza-Cahuilla valleys, Badlands-San Jacinto Wildlife Area-Lake Perris, San Jacinto Mountains, Lake Mathews-Estelle Mountain, Lake Skinner-Diamond Valley Lake, and Santa Ana River-Prado Basin.

Objective 2

Include within the MSHCP Conservation Area habitat linkages and movement corridors between large Core Areas that allow dispersal and movement of bobcats throughout the Plan Area and to areas outside of the Plan Area. Key habitat connections and corridors include the following:

• Santa Ana Mountains to Chino Hills via Fresno Canyon-Green River
• Santa Ana Mountains to Lake Mathews-Estelle Mountain via Indian Canyon and Horsethief Canyon
• Santa Ana Mountains to Agua Tibia Wilderness-Palomar Mountains via Pechanga Creek or future wildlife overpass over Interstate15 north of Rainbow (possibly in San Diego County)
• Along length of Santa Ana River between Rubidoux-North Riverside and Prado Basin
• Lake Skinner-Diamond Valley Lake to Sage-San Jacinto Mountains via Tucalota Creek and adjacent uplands in reserve or rural mountainous designation areas
• Along Badlands to San Jacinto Wildlife Area-Lake Perris and San Jacinto Mountains
• Badlands to San Bernardino Mountains through Cherry Valley
• San Jacinto Mountains to San Bernardino Mountains via Banning Canyon and San Gorgonio Wash

Objective 3

Within the MSHCP Conservation Area, maintain or improve functionality of dispersal routes. Existing undercrossings in key areas will be evaluated for their adequacy and improved as necessary to convey bobcats. Key crossings that will be evaluated include, but are not limited to, the following:

• The crossing of State Highway 91 that connects the Santa Ana Mountains with the Chino Hills via Fresno Canyon-Green River.
• The crossings of Interstate 15 that connect the Santa Ana Mountains with Lake Mathews-Estelle Mountain via Indian Canyon and Horsethief Canyon.
• The crossing(s) of Interstate 15 that connect the Santa Ana Mountains with the Agua Tibia Wilderness-Palomar Mountains via Pechanga Creek or the possible "Rainbow" overpass.
• Undercrossings of State Highway 60 in the Badlands.

SPECIES CONSERVATION ANALYSIS

Conservation of the bobcat is primarily considered from a landscape perspective because the species is found throughout the Plan Area. However, there are definable large habitat areas and key movement and dispersal locations for focusing conservation efforts that will be important for conservation of this species in the Plan Area.

Conservation Levels

For the purpose of the conservation analysis, suitable habitat for the bobcat includes chaparral, coastal sage scrub, desert scrubs, grassland (annual, native, meadow, alkali playa), juniper woodland and scrub, Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, riparian habitats, woodlands and forests, and coniferous forests. Based on these habitats, the Plan Area support approximately 815,730 acres of suitable habitat for the bobcat. Table 1 shows the conservation of suitable habitat for the bobcat. Approximately 469,000 acres (57 percent) of suitable habitat would be in the MSHCP Conservation Area.

TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF HABITAT CONSERVATION - BOBCAT

		Within MSHCP Conservation Area			Outside MHSCP Conservation Area
Vegetation Type	Plan Area (Acres)	Criteria Area1 (Acres)	Public/ Quasi-Public (Acres)	Total Within MSHCP Conservation Area (Acres)	Rural Mountainous (Acres)	Outside MSHCP Conservation Area (Acres)	Total Outside MSHCP Conservation Area (Acres)
Chaparral	413,488	64,899	207,381	272,280	59,582	81,626	141,208
Coastal Sage Scrub	152,686	47,161	34,555	81,716	26,241	44,729	70,970
Desert Scrubs	9,378	3,675	1,314	4,989	44	4,345	4,389
Grassland	146,869	20,011	22,806	42,817	12,223	91,829	104,502
Meadow	492	0	87	87	18	387	405
Playas and Vernal Pools	7,914	3,828	2,923	6,751	0	1,163	1,163
Juniper Woodland and Scrub	1,082	336	274	609	23	450	473
Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub	7,149	3,171	2,063	5,234	217	1,697	1,914
Riparian	14,607	3,920	7,173	11,193	368	3,045	3,413
Coniferous Forest	29,900	17	20,485	20,502	43	9,355	9,398
Woodlands and Forest	32,167	2,388	20,497	22,885	5,017	4,266	9,282
TOTAL	815,732	149,406 18%	319,558 39%	469,063 57%	103,776 13%	242,892 30%	347,117 43%
1 Acres refer to Additional Reserve Lands to be assembled from within the Criteria Area.

The MSHCP Conservation Area will preserve the remaining large, undisturbed areas of the Plan Area that provide adequate habitat for the bobcat, including sufficient area to support several home ranges (ranges vary widely from about 270 acres to 40,000 acres, but typically would be about 850 acres for males and 300 for females) and adequate prey (rabbits, squirrels, and other smaller rodents). Areas that probably would meet these minimum requirements include the Santa Rosa Plateau-Santa Ana Mountains, Agua Tibia Wilderness-Palomar Mountains, Lake Skinner-Diamond Valley Lake, Vail Lake-Sage-Aguanga, Anza Valley, San Jacinto Mountains, the Badlands-Lake Perris-San Jacinto Wildlife Area, Lake Mathews-Estelle Mountain, and the Santa Ana River-Prado Basin. Bobcats are likely to occur in other areas of the reserve, such as Sedco Hills-Kabian Park, Warm Springs Creek, Lakeview Mountains, and the Jurupa Mountains, but these areas provide limited area for bobcats and may be mortality sinks because of the existing and planned roads and human presence.

As described below under Data Characterization, 34 of the 75 point localities have a precision of "1" or "2." Of these 34 point localities, 12 (35 percent) would be inside the MSHCP Conservation Area. The abundance and distribution of data points for this species may be misleading due to lack of reporting for a species that is considered "common."

MSHCP Conservation Area Configuration Issues

Habitat linkages between the large habitat blocks described above will be important for accommodating movement and dispersal. Bobcats make daily movements of approximately 0.6 mile to 6.2 miles per day (Larivière and Walton 1997), but most of these movements will be within the large habitat blocks related to foraging. The critical reserve configuration issue is whether habitat linkages will allow successful dispersal between large habitat blocks by yearlings. While young are capable of dispersing long distances (at least 182 km [113 miles]), they require sufficient cover to move safely. Dispersal connections through marginal habitat should be as short as possible. Movements that could be made within one night could occur across marginal habitats, but longer movements will require refugia for resting, such as rockpiles, brushpiles, windfalls, hollow snags, and hollow trees. Riparian habitat and dense and rocky chaparral or coastal sage scrub along longer movement corridors (e.g., longer than six miles) would be ideal. In addition, movement across freeways and major roads will require adequate overpasses or underpasses to reduce the chance of mortality from vehicle collisions. Open bridges that span the flood plain are the preferred undercrossing. Culverts should be at least 10-20 feet wide to accommodate movement, with fencing and vegetative cover to funnel bobcats into the wildlife crossing.

The key bobcat movement linkages between Core Areas are as follows:

• Santa Ana Mountains to Chino Hills via Fresno Canyon-Green River
• Santa Ana Mountains to Lake Mathews-Estelle Mountain via Indian Canyon and/or Horsethief Canyon
• Santa Ana Mountains to Agua Tibia Wilderness-Palomar Mountains via Pechanga Creek or future wildlife overpass over I-15 north of Rainbow (possibly in San Diego County)
• Along length of Santa Ana River between Rubidoux-North Riverside and Prado Basin
• Lake Skinner-Diamond Valley Lake to Sage-San Jacinto Mountains via Tucalota Creek and adjacent uplands in reserve or rural mountainous designation
• Along Badlands to San Jacinto Wildlife Area-Lake Perris and San Jacinto Mountains
• Badlands to San Bernardino Mountains through Cherry Valley
• San Jacinto Mountains to San Bernardino Mountains via Banning Canyon and San Gorgonio Wash

Conservation Summary

In summary, conservation for the bobcat will be achieved by inclusion of at least 469,000 acres of suitable Conserved Habitat. Although the current population of the bobcat in the Plan Area is unknown, it is assumed to be widespread in suitable habitat. Currently its distribution in the Plan Area is likely more constrained by limited habitat connections than from too little habitat. Large connected habitat blocks in the MSHCP Conservation Area will provide for movement areas that are adequate to support the life history needs of the bobcat, including foraging, reproduction, and dispersal activities. The main habitat areas for bobcats in the MSHCP Conservation Area include the Santa Ana Mountains-Santa Rosa Plateau, the Agua Tibia Wilderness-Palomar Mountains, the San Jacinto Mountains and Foothills, Lake Mathews-Estelle Mountain, Lake Skinner-Diamond Valley Lake, the Badlands, Santa Ana River-Prado Basin, and the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains.

INCIDENTAL TAKE

About 347,000 acres (43 percent) of suitable habitat for the bobcat would be outside the MSHCP Conservation Area. Lands outside the MSHCP Conservation Area tend to be in areas that currently are more fragmented by urban and agricultural development and thus less suitable for long-term conservation of the bobcat.

SPECIES ACCOUNT

Data Characterization

The MSHCP database includes 75 records for the bobcat. Of the 75 records, 24 (32 percent) are precision code "1" (an "x' and "y" coordinate that allows for good precision in the location), 10 (13 percent) are precision code "2" (one "x" or "y" coordinate or equivalent), and the remaining 41 (55 percent) are precision codes "3" or "4" (relatively imprecise locations from general areas). Most of the records are relatively recent, with 55 (73 percent) since 1990. Most of the others are from the 1970s and 1980s, with only two of the records dating from 1908 and 1916, respectively, and two others with no date provided for the records. Data records for the bobcat are scattered throughout the Plan Area, with clusters on the Santa Rosa Plateau, Lake Skinner-Diamond Valley Lake area, and the Banning-Beaumont area. These scattered data points represent records since 1990. Based on the recency of the much of the data and the scatter of records throughout the Plan Area, the database appears to provide a fairly good representation of the population distribution of this species in the Plan Area.

Habitat and Habitat Associations

Although widespread throughout Riverside County, the bobcat is most closely associated with rocky and brushy areas near springs or other perennial water sources, primarily in foothills comprised of chaparral habitats. Bobcats prefer areas with adequate cover in the form of rock cavities, snags, stumps and dense brush (Zeiner et al. 1990), but they occur in any sizable area of relatively undisturbed scrub habitat (S. Montgomery 1998). Habitat preferences of the bobcat throughout the year strongly reflect prey abundance (see Larivière and Walton 1997).

Of the 75 records in the MSHCP database, 17 (23 percent) are in chaparral, 12 (16 percent) are in scrub (Riversidean sage scrub, Diegan coastal sage scrub, desert succulent scrub, and disturbed alluvial), 16 (21 percent) are in grassland (including annual and non-native grassland and alkali playa), and seven (9 percent) are in oak woodland, coniferous forest, and riparian habitats. Twenty-two records (29 percent) are in areas currently mapped as agriculture (orchards, field croplands and dairy) and residential/urban/exotic. These records may or may not be valid, but the occasional sightings of bobcats in such areas would not be unusual, especially if the areas are near natural habitats. In addition, there will be a bias for sightings in areas where people are more likely to see them.

Biogeography

Bobcats occur throughout the contiguous United States, Mexico south to Rio Mescale, and Canada, except for Vancouver Island, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland (Hall 1981; Larivière and Walton 1997). The subspecies L. r. californicus occurs throughout California, with the exception of the extreme northwestern portion of the state and the Great Basin, Mojave, and Colorado deserts. Marginal records for this subspecies are Mt. Shasta, Lee Vining Creek Grade, Riverside, San Jacinto Mountains, and Santa Rosa Mountains (Hall 1981).

Known Populations Within Western Riverside County

Bobcats occur throughout western Riverside County in suitable habitat. Areas with frequent observations include the Santa Rosa Plateau, the Lake Skinner-Diamond Valley Lake area, the Badlands, Banning-Beaumont, Lake Mathews, Santa Ana River, and Sage.

Key Populations in Plan Area

Key areas for the bobcat are areas that still support large tracts of relatively undisturbed habitat such as the Santa Rosa Plateau and adjacent Cleveland National Forest in the Santa Ana Mountains, Lake Skinner-Diamond Valley Lake, Lake Mathews-Estelle Mountain, the Badlands, Santa Ana River, Vail Lake, Sage, Aguanga, Anza Valley, Agua Tibia Wilderness-Palomar Range, and the San Jacinto Mountains.

Biology

Population and life history traits of bobcats appear to vary geographically (e.g., Larivière and Walton 1997; Rucker et al. 1985), therefore the information provided here must be viewed with caution. Generalizations of characteristics from other populations may only roughly approximate those of the bobcat population in the MSHCP Plan Area.

Genetics: Little genetic information is available for the bobcat. The diploid number of chromosomes of the bobcat is 38 (Larivière and Walton 1997). They are known to hybridize with feral cats (Felis cattus) (Larivière and Walton 1997).

Diet and Foraging: Bobcats are primarily carnivores (Larivière and Walton 1997). In most regions their main diet is lagomorphs (rabbits and hares), with sciurids (squirrels) and microtine rodents consumed opportunistically. However, bobcat diets also appear to reflect the availability of prey. For example, in central Arizona woodrats (Neotoma spp.) and heteromyids (kangaroo rats [Dipodomys spp.] and pocket mice [Perognathus and Chaetodipus spp.]) made up the majority of bobcat diets, with lagomorphs making up a smaller proportion (Jones and Smith 1979). Other prey include muskrats (Ondatra zibethicus), woodchucks (Marmota monax), porcupines (Erethizon dorsatum), beavers (Castor canadensis), and mountain beavers (Aplodontia rufa). Bobcats occasionally kill domestic animals. They are a major predator of the federally-listed endangered and state-listed threatened San Joaquin Valley kitfox (Vulpes macrotis). Larger prey include mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), American pronghorn antelope (Antilocarpa americana), and bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis). Bobcats also prey on a variety of birds, reptiles, fish, and insects.

Bobcats are solitary hunters. They typically hunt in areas with cover using a stealth approach and then pouncing and striking. However, they may also sit and wait along game trails. Kills may be cached but not fully consumed.

Daily Activities: Bobcats mostly are nocturnal, but may be active any time of the day. Their peak activities generally are 1800 to 2400 hrs in the evening and 0400 to 1000 in the early to mid-morning (Larivière and Walton 1997). Their lowest period of activity is midday. Resting sites include steep-sloped, rocky areas with dense vertical cover and sparse herbaceous ground cover, rockpiles, brushpiles, windfalls, hollow snags, and hollow trees. Bobcats often rest near fresh kills. Daily movements range from approximately 1 km (0.6 mile) to 10 km (6.2 miles) per day (Larivière and Walton 1997).

Reproduction: Breeding is polygamous (both sexes may have several partners) and females are polyestrous (multiple estrous periods during a breeding season) (Larivière and Walton 1997). Females that fail to become pregnant in the early spring may become estrous again in late spring or summer and pregnancy rates appear to be affected by environmental factors. Females are induced ovulators, meaning that copulation stimulates ovulation as opposed to spontaneous ovulation. The peak of the breeding season typically is December to July, but timing varies with latitude, longitude, altitude and climate. Kittens may be born any month of the year, but peak births occur from April to June. The typical gestation period is about 63 days and litter sizes range from 1-6, but vary geographically. For example, the mean litter size in a Kansas population is 2.0, while in Utah the mean litter size is 3.5. Females may become estrous in their natal year, but most first pregnancies occur in the second year. In a study of bobcats in Oklahoma, pregnancy rates in yearlings was 46 percent compared to 92 percent for adults (Rolley 19885). Litters of adults tend to be larger than those of yearlings.

Male reproduction is variable and more related to body weight than to age. However, adult males may have less reduction in sperm production in the late summer and fall after the breeding season than younger males. Adult males also are reproductively active until death.

Survival: Bobcats may live up to 32 years in captivity. Mortality in the wild is strongly related to harvesting of bobcats through hunting, trapping, and poaching (Larivière and Walton 1997). In the past, the bobcat has been considered a "varmint" species and was often trapped or hunted by ranchers and farmers (Nowak 1991). In states and Canadian provinces where bobcats are harvested, annual survival rates range from 0.19 in Massachusetts under heavy harvesting (Larivière and Walton 1997) to 0.66 for adults and 0.3 for juveniles in Oklahoma (Rolley 1985). Bobcats also die from disease and infections (e.g., from porcupine quills), road kills (Larivière and Walton 1997), and occasional electrocution from power lines (Williams 1990). In California, where bobcats are not harvested, 35 percent of mortality was due to predation, 15 percent due to disease, and 10 percent due to starvation (Larivière and Walton 1997). Based on a study of a harvested population in Oklahoma, Rolley (1985) suggested that natural mortality rates in the absence of harvest probably are quite low. He also suggests that harvesting may differentially affect age groups (i.e., juveniles, yearlings, and adults), with relatively more effects on older animals. The consequence of these differential effects on the population age structure and productivity is unknown, but biased harvesting of more productive adult males and females could reduce population growth rates and jeopardize persistence.

Dispersal: Young bobcats start traveling alone by six months of age, but stay close to their natal den. Yearlings permanently disperse before the next litter is born and are capable of moving very long distances. For example, two young males dispersed 182 and 158 km, respectively (Larivière and Walton 1997).

Socio-Spatial Behavior: Home ranges and population densities vary geographically, and in relation sex and resources. Larivière and Walton (1997) reported home ranges of 1.1 to 158 sq. km, with male home ranges consistently larger than female ranges. Bradley and Fagre (1988) reported male home ranges of 3.5 sq. km for males and 1.2 sq. km for females in an area of fairly high bobcat density in south Texas. Typically, males ranges are about three times larger than female ranges. Male ranges overlap the ranges of both other males and females, but female ranges generally are exclusive of other females. Bobcats show high site fidelity between seasons and range boundaries are maintained by visual and olfactory cues, including scent marking with feces, urine, anal glands, and scrapes. Changes in home ranges usually only occur after the death of the resident animal.

Home range sizes track food availability; as prey decrease, home ranges increase in size. Home ranges also vary in relation to breeding activities. Male ranges increase during the breeding season, while female ranges are smallest during the breeding and rearing season. However, for females at least, breeding and rearing probably coincides with greater prey availability, so it is difficult to determine whether the decrease in home range size is due to breeding activities or better foraging opportunities. For males, the relationship seems clearer; male ranges increase during breeding, presumably to seek out and consort with females, even when prey availability presumably is higher.

Population density ranges reported by Larivière and Walton include one bobcat per 3.6 to 4.1 sq. km in Arizona, one per 0.7 to 0.9 sq. km in California, one per 11 sq. km in Oklahoma, and one per 23.3 sq. km in Utah. Relatively high densities for the bobcat are reported from south Texas; 1.0-1.3 bobcats per sq. km (Bradley and Fagre 1988). Population densities appear to fluctuate in response to prey, so these density values should be viewed as approximations. However, in general prey densities are lower in arid and semi-arid environments.

Community Relationships: As a top predator, the bobcat, in conjunction with coyotes (Canis latrans), mountain lions (Puma concolor), foxes (Vulpia spp.), and raptors, may have a significant impact on populations of prey species such as lagomorphs and rodents. This predation on herbivores and granivores may in turn affect vegetation conditions.

Bobcats overlap with both coyotes and mountain lions, and their habitats and diets are very similar to that of the coyote. It is expected that such resource overlap would result in behavioral mechanisms that partition resources and allow coexistence of the species. Koehler and Hornocker (1991) examined seasonal use of habitats and prey in central Idaho by mountain lions, bobcats, and coyotes to determine how they coexist. They found partitioning of prey and habitat resources in the summer, with bobcats and mountain lions foraging in areas with cover for stalking, while coyotes tended to use open areas (i.e., coursing). During the winter bobcats specialized on voles while lions hunted for elk (Cervus elaphus) and deer. Physically, the larger lion is able to negotiate deep snow better, while the lighter bobcat utilized snow free south-southwest exposures at lower elevations. Coyotes overlapped with both felid species during the winter, hunting and scavenging ungulates and foraging in open areas for smaller prey. During the winter there was more overlap in resource use and direct or "interference" competition was more common. While coyote kills were not visited by bobcats or lions (possibly because of pack formation), about one-half of bobcat kills were visited by coyotes and lions. During the winter lions killed both bobcats and coyotes while defending or usurping food caches, with five of eight deaths of bobcats attributed to mountain lions. The killing apparently was related to competition for kills because the bobcats were not consumed by the lions. In south Texas, on the other hand, Bradley and Fagre (1988) observed no obvious spatial or temporal habitat partitioning between coyotes and bobcats.

Physiological Ecology: Bobcats do not appear to have specific metabolic adaptations to geographically different or seasonally changing environmental conditions. They occur in widely varying geographical locations (longitudinally, latitudinally, and altitudinally) throughout the contiguous United States, southern Canada, and south to Rio Mescale, Mexico. Their metabolic rate does not vary seasonally, but rather they use behavioral mechanisms such as sunning and selection of microhabitats for the added energy requirements in the winter (Larivière and Walton 1997). In winter, bobcats also appear to use lower habitats to avoid snow (Larivière and Walton 1997).

Threats to Species

Habitat Loss and Fragmentation: Loss of large, relatively undisturbed blocks of habitat and adequate linkages between blocks of habitat are a serious threat to the persistence of bobcats in western Riverside County. Disturbance from human recreation such as hiking, mountain biking, off-road vehicles and mortality from vehicle collisions probably will cause the gradual disappearance of bobcats from the more urbanized areas in the County.

Disease: Bobcats are known to carry several diseases, including rabies and cat-scratch fever, gastric enteritis, respiratory infections, and Cyauxzoon felis transmitted by the tick Dermacentor variabilis. They are also host to various trematodes, cestodes, nematodes, protozoa, acanthocephlans, helminths, and Microfilariae. Ectoparasites found on bobcats include mites (Notoedres cati), ticks, and lice (Felicola subrostratus).

Special Biological Considerations

In general, bobcats are very adaptable and flexible in their habitat and prey requirements. However, maintenance of undisturbed habitat patches for breeding, preferably with rock outcrops and boulders, is important for conserving and managing this species. A key factor for the bobcat will be conservation of movement and dispersal habitat linkages along major drainages and accommodation of movement under or over major roadways via drainage culverts and specific wildlife crossings (e.g., wildlife overpasses). Bobcats are highly susceptible to collisions with vehicles. Crossings used by mule deer will be sufficient for bobcats; e.g., culverts measuring 10-20 feet in width and providing for unobstructed visual contact from end to end. In addition, fencing along roadways near movement linkages to funnel bobcats into the wildlife crossing and reduce vehicular collisions should be used.

A radiotelemetry study of bobcats by Bradley and Fagre (1988) provides some relevant observations for management of the species. Their study was on a 1,093-hectare (2,700 acres) range management research site in south Texas. The research site supports dense thickets, open savannahs, and native grassland, as well as fencelines, roads, grazing pasture, hay pasture and some buildings. The study found that bobcats used fencelines and roads within their home ranges for hunting more than expected by chance. They exhibited a slight avoidance of cattle, but were relatively undisturbed by human presence. This study suggests that bobcats can coexist successfully with humans as long as the human activities do not reduce habitat and prey resources or increase mortality rates (i.e., harvesting or vehicular collisions).

LITERATURE CITED

Bradley, L.C. and D.B. Fagre. 1988. Coyote and bobcat responses to integrated ranch management practices in south Texas. Journal of Range Management 41:322-327.

Crooks, K. and D. Jones. 1998. Monitoring program for carnivore corridor use in The Nature Reserve of Orange County. Annual Report - 1998. Prepared for The Nature Reserve of Orange County, 24 pp + appendices.

Hall, E.R. 1981. The Mammals of North America. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 2 Vol. 1181 pp.

Jones, J.H. and N.S. Smith. 1979. Bobcat density and prey selection in central Arizona. Journal of Wildlife Management 43:666-672.

Koehler, G.M. and M.G. Hornocker. 1991. Seasonal resource use among mountain lions, bobcats, and coyotes. Journal of Mammalogy 72:391-396.

Larivière, S. and L.R. Walton. 1997. Lynx rufus. In Mammalian Species No. 564:1-8. Published by the American Society of Mammalogists.

Montgomery, S. 31 August 1998 & 28 September 1998. Personal fax communication to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Nowak, R.M. 1991. Walker's Mammals of the World, Fifth Edition. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Vol I & II, 1,629 pp.

Rolley, R.E. 1985. Dynamics of a harvested bobcat population in Oklahoma. Journal of Wildlife Management 49:283-292.

Rucker, R.A., M.L. Kennedy, G.A. Heidt, and M.J. Harvey. 1989. Population density, movements, and habitat use of bobcats in Arkansas. The Southwestern Naturalist 34:101-108.

Williams, R.D. 1990. Bobcat electrocution on powerlines. California Fish and Game Notes, 187-189.

Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White. 1990. California Wildlife, Volume III, Mammals. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.

 

---

 

SPECIES NAME AND GROUP DESIGNATION

Common Name and Scientific Name:

brush rabbit (Sylvilagus bachmani)

Status:

State: None

Federal: None

GROUP DESIGNATION AND RATIONALE

Group 1

The brush rabbit occurs throughout the Plan Area in suitable habitat, including chaparral, coastal sage scrub (Diegan coastal sage scrub, Riversidean sage scrub, and alluvial fan sage scrub), riparian and woodland habitats, coniferous forest, and agricultural areas (grove/orchard, and field crops). They occur at all elevations up to 6,000 feet. Geographical areas with apparent concentrations of observations include Sage, Anza Valley, Santa Rosa Plateau, and the foothills of the San Jacinto Mountains. The brush rabbit population size in the Plan Area is unknown. Although relatively little is known of this species in the Plan Area, with a large enough MSHCP Conservation Area, specific management regimes will not be necessary. All that appears to be necessary for conservation of the brush rabbit are large habitat areas, adequate vegetative cover, and suitable dispersal and/or movement linkages.

SPECIES CONSERVATION OBJECTIVES

The species-specific conservation objectives developed for this species are based upon the best available scientific information at the time of MSHCP preparation. Pursuant to Section 5.0 which includes Management, Monitoring and the Adaptive Management Program, the MSHCP's mitigation requirements will be monitored and analyzed to determine if they are producing the desired result. Based upon this information, the following species-specific conservation objectives will be adjusted if appropriate, as new information is gathered during Plan implementation. The Adaptive Management Program will be used to identify alternative strategies for meeting the MSHCP's general biological goals and objectives and, if necessary, adjusting future conservation strategies according to the information received.

Objective 1

Include within the MSHCP Conservation Area 382,115 acres (63 percent) of suitable habitat in the Plan Area. Conservation in the primary core habitat areas includes the Existing Core A (10,740 acres), Existing Core B (71,490 acres contiguous with Cleveland National Forest in Orange County), Existing Core C (15,610 acres), Existing Core F (8,360 acres), Existing Core G (4,490 acres), Existing Core H (17,470 acres), Existing Core I (9,610 acres contiguous with San Bernardino National Forest in San Bernardino County), Existing Core J (24,370 acres), Existing Core K (149,750 acres), Existing Core L (24,750 acres contiguous with Cleveland National Forest in San Diego County), Existing Core M (10,460 acres contiguous with Cleveland National Forest in San Diego County), Proposed Core 1 (7,470 acres), Proposed Core 2 (5,050 acres), Proposed Core 3 (24,920 acres), Proposed Core 4 (11,890 acres), Proposed Core 5 (3,220 acres), Proposed Core 6 (4,290 acres), and Proposed Core 7 (50,000 acres).

Objective 2

Include within the MSHCP Conservation Area 44,000 acres of dispersal and/or movement linkages between large blocks of conserved habitat.

SPECIES CONSERVATION ANALYSIS

Conservation Levels

For the purpose of the conservation analysis, suitable habitat for the brush rabbit includes chaparral, coastal sage scrub (Diegan coastal sage scrub, Riversidean sage scrub), Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub and woodland and forest. Despite a substantial percentage of observations in areas mapped as grassland, it is not included as a suitable habitat in the analysis because this species typically is observed at the shrub-grassland ecotone and not in open grassland habitats (e.g., Connell 1954; Chapman 1971). Therefore, including grassland as a suitable habitat may result in a gross overestimate of the suitable habitat conserved. On the other hand, because brush rabbits do occur at least along the edges of grasslands, the conservation estimate probably is conservative. Based on these assumptions about suitable habitat, the Plan Area supports approximately 605,490 acres of suitable habitat. Table 1 shows the conservation suitable habitat for the brush rabbit. Approximately 382,115 acres (63 percent) of the existing suitable habitat would be in the MSHCP Conservation Area.

TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF HABITAT CONSERVATION
BRUSH RABBIT

Vegetation Type	MSHCP Plan Area (Acres)	Within MSHCP conservation Area			Outside MSHCP conservation Area
		Criteria Area1 (Acres)	Public/ Quasi-Public (Acres)	Total Within MSHCP Conservation Area (Acres)	Rural/ Mountainous (Acres)	Outside MSHCP Conservation Area (Acres)	Total Outside MSHCP Conservation Area (Acres)
Chaparral	413,488	64,899	207,381	272,280	59,582	81,626	141,208
Coastal Sage Scrub	152,686	47,161	34,555	81,716	26,241	44,729	70,790
Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub	7,149	3,171	2,063	5,234	217	1,697	1,914
Woodlands and Forest	32,167	2,388	20,497	22,885	5,017	4,266	9,283
TOTAL	605,490	117,619 (19%)	264,496 (44%)	382,115 (63%)	91,057 (15%)	132,318 (22%)	223,195 (37%)
1 Acres refer to Additional Reserve Lands to be assembled from within the Criteria Area.

As described below under Data Characterization, 65 of the 122 point localities have a precision of "1" or "2." Of these 65 point localities, 15 (23percent) would be inside the MSHCP Conservation Area. However, this relatively low percentage of observed locations in the reserve does not reflect the large proportion of suitable habitat that will be conserved.

The brush rabbit will benefit from new conservation of approximately 382,000 acres of suitable habitat within the MSHCP Conservation Area. A substantial amount of habitat conservation will be within large blocks of habitat in areas known to support populations of brush rabbit, including the Santa Rosa Plateau, Lake Skinner, Sage-Wilson Creek, and Tule Creek-Anza Valley, and other areas with high potential to support the species, including the Santa Ana Mountains, Agua Tibia Wilderness-Palomar Range, San Jacinto Mountains, and the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains. Acreage within the core habitat areas are summarized in Objective 1.

MSHCP Conservation Area Configuration Issues

Conservation of the brush rabbit will depend on preserving large blocks of suitable habitat capable of sustaining viable populations of the rabbit. Habitat linkages between distant large habitat blocks may be important for this species. Brush rabbits appear to be sedentary compared to other Sylvilagus species and other mammals, although little specific dispersal data are available (e.g., see Chapman 1971). Because brush rabbits are unlikely to disperse through unsuitable habitat, linkages between large habitat blocks would have to contain habitat suitable for permanent occupation. As such, there probably will be distinct populations of brush rabbits that have little, if any, interchange of individuals in the future. For example, the Santa Rosa Plateau-Santa Ana Mountains population may be reproductively isolated from the population in the Lake Mathews-Estelle Mountain area because of Interstate 15 and lack of contiguous suitable habitat connections between the two areas. It is unknown whether brush rabbits use the crossings under Interstate 15 at Indian and Horsethief canyons. It also is unclear whether populations in the Santa Rosa Plateau will be isolated from the Agua Tibia Wilderness-Palomar Mountains population because of Interstate 15. Pechanga Creek currently may or may not provide suitable habitat for movement between the two areas. Highway 79 along Temecula Creek may be a barrier to north-south dispersal between the Vail Lake-Sage area and Agua Tibia-Palomar Range, although individuals may use culverts along some of the drainages such as Kolb Creek and Arroyo Seco. The Santa Ana River-Prado Basin population probably is isolated from other populations in the Plan Area, but should be linked with populations in Orange County along the river and in the Chino Hills. As summarized in Objective 2, approximately 44,000 acres will be conserved in habitat linkages, but not all of this habitat is likely to be suitable for the brush rabbit.

Conservation Summary

In summary, conservation for the brush rabbit will be achieved by inclusion of approximately 382,000 acres of suitable Conserved Habitat in the MSHCP Conservation Area. In addition, large habitat blocks throughout the Plan Area with interconnecting linkages will be conserved, including the Santa Ana River-Prado Basin, Santa Rosa Plateau-Santa Ana Mountains, Agua Tibia Wilderness-Palomar Mountains, San Jacinto Mountains and foothills, Lake Skinner-Diamond Valley Lake, Sage-Vail Lake-Wilson Valley, and the Anza and Tule valleys. The Santa Ana River-Prado Basin and Santa Rosa Plateau-Santa Ana Mountains may be functionally isolated from the other habitat areas by the Riverside Freeway (State Highway 91) and Interstate 15, but they are large enough habitat areas (including portions in Orange and San Diego counties) to sustain viable populations. The other habitat blocks are reasonably well connected and rabbits should be able to disperse throughout these areas.

INCIDENTAL TAKE

Approximately 223,195 acres (37 percent) of suitable habitat for the brush rabbit will not be conserved. Suitable habitat outside the MSHCP Conservation Area tends to be in areas that are more fragmented by urban and agricultural development and less suitable for the long-term conservation of the brush rabbit.

SPECIES ACCOUNT

Data Characterization

The MSHCP database includes a total of 122 records for the brush rabbit. Of the 122 records, 57 (47 percent) are precision 1 (i.e., an "x" and "y" coordinate that allows for a relatively precise location), eight (6 percent) are precision 2 (one "x" or "y" coordinate or equivalent that allows a reasonably precise location) and the remaining 57 (47 percent) are precision codes 3 and 4 that do not allow for a precise location of the record. Most of the records are recent, with 102 (84 percent) since 1990. The primary concern about the data is the accuracy of field identification between the brush rabbit and the co-occurring desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), which occurs in more xeric conditions, is somewhat larger (0.6-1.2 kg versus 0.6-0.8 kg), lighter in color and has longer ears (76-102 mm in length versus 51-66 mm). The desert cottontail is more common in arid valleys, but there may be a tendency to identify the two species in the field by habitat association, attributing brush rabbits to areas with heavier brush.

Habitat and Habitat Associations

Brush rabbits inhabit dense, brushy cover, most commonly in chaparral vegetation (Chapman 1974). They also occur in early successional stages of oak and conifer habitats (Zeiner et al. 1990). Brush rabbits do not dig their own dens, but use the burrows of other species, brush piles, or "forms." In the San Francisco Bay area, Connell (1954) found that brush rabbits concentrate their activities at the edge of brush and exhibit much less use of grass areas. Use of interior brush also was used irregularly and Connell suggests that the brush-herb ecotone is better habitat than continuous chaparral. Chapman (1971) also found that brush rabbits at a study site near Corvallis, Oregon rarely left brushy cover. Brush may be used more in the drier seasons while grasses are used in the wetter seasons in relation to growth of annual herbaceous vegetation. Use of habitat also probably is related to the breeding season.

Within the MSHCP Plan Area, 45 (37 percent) of the occurrences are in chaparral (chaparral, red shank chaparral), 13 (11percent) in coastal sage scrub (Diegan coastal sage scrub, Riversidean sage scrub, disturbed alluvial), one (<1 percent) in desert scrub, 25 (20 percent) in non-native grassland (possible confusion with the desert cottontail?), four (3 percent) in oak woodland (coast live oak woodland and Engelmann oak woodland), two (1.6 percent) in coniferous forest, 12 (10 percent) in agriculture (grove/orchards, field croplands), and 19 (15 percent) in urban/residential/exotic landscapes. One location was mapped in open water/reservoir, but this probably is a mapping or registration error.

Biogeography

The brush rabbit, S. bachmani, is a Pacific coastal species that occurs west of the Cascades and Sierra Nevadas from southern Oregon to Baja California, Mexico. It is generally absent from the dry Central Valley, except for a small population of S. b. riparius known only from the west side of the San Joaquin River in Stanislaus County. Marginal records for the subspecies S. b. cinerascens include San Emigdio Canyon; Reche Canyon; Dos Palmas Springs; Santa Rosa Mountains; and Baja California (Hall 1981). They occur from sea level to at least 2,070 meters (6,800 feet) (Chapman 1974).

Known Populations Within Western Riverside County

The brush rabbit occurs in appropriate habitat throughout western Riverside County. Populations appear to be centered around Sage, Anza Valley, Santa Rosa Plateau, and the foothills of the San Jacinto Mountains. Additional localities include Santa Ana River, Alberhill, Vail Lake, Lakeview Mountains, the Badlands, Sycamore Canyon, Banning-Beaumont, Calimesa, and Garner Valley.

Key Populations in Plan Area

Santa Rosa Plateau and Sage area, but occurs throughout the Plan Area in appropriate habitat.

Biology

Genetics: The brush rabbit has a diploid chromosome number of 48 (Chapman 1974). No other relevant genetic studies were found.

Diet and Foraging: Brush rabbits are herbivorous and graze on a wide variety of grasses and annual forbs, including clovers (Trifolium spp.), foxtail barley (Hordeum murinum), bromes (Bromus spp.), wild oats (Avena spp.), and thistles (Sonchus asper, Circium lanceolatum) (Chapman 1974; Zeiner et al. 1990). They prefer the newly grown tips of plants (Chapman 1974). Brush rabbits also feed on species such as creeping eragrostis (Eragrostis hypnoides), spikerush (Eleocharis palustris), wild rose (Rosa californica), Mexican tea (Chenopodium ambrosoides), marsh baccharis (Baccharis douglasii), rush (Juncus spp.), the roots of poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), and the stems and leaves of California blackberry (Rubus ursinus) (Chapman 1974). Their diet and foraging behavior vary in relation to season; they forage on annual, herbaceous vegetation during the wetter season and perennial brush species during the drier season.

Daily Activities: Brush rabbits mostly are crepuscular, with activity greatest around dusk and dawn. They are less active at night and occasionally active during the day (Zeiner et al. 1990). They often stay just inside brushy cover and then venture into open grassy areas to feed (Connell 1954; Chapman 1974). They spend a considerable time sunning, usually following rain or fog (Chapman 1974). Connell (1954) found that males made their greatest daily moves February to March, while females' longest moves were December to February. Average daily moves were 81+15 feet by males and 61+10 feet by females.

Reproduction: The peak breeding season for brush rabbits in California is from December to May and possibly into June (Chapman 1974). However, based on an analysis of reproductive organs from rabbits taken in San Francisco Bay area, Mossman (1955) determined that males are capable of breeding from possibly October through July and most likely from November through June. He concluded that males probably are not fertile from July through October, the driest part of the year. Females exhibit pregnancy from the first week of December until about the end of June (Mossman 1955). In Oregon, the breeding season is the same length, but runs from about February to August (Chapman and Harman 1972). Gestation is 27+3 days. Three and possibly four litters of 2-5 offspring are produced annually (Chapman and Harman 1972; Mossman 1955) and an annual production of 15.2 young per female was calculated by Chapman and Harman (1972). Chapman and Harman conclude that brush rabbits are not as fecund as some other cottontail species that may produce up to 35 offspring per year. Litter sizes are smaller in Oregon than California and there appears to be a negative correlation between litter size and latitude and a positive correlation between breeding and the rainy season (Chapman and Harman 1972). In Oregon brush rabbits, it was determined that 16.3 percent of ova failed to implant and 15.5 percent of embryos were resorbed (Chapman and Harman 1972). Based on intervals between litters, females exhibit a postpartum estrus and can become pregnant shortly after giving birth (Chapman and Harman 1972).

Brush rabbits prepare a nest cavity approximately 75 by 150 mm lined with fur and small amounts of grass (Chapman 1974). The young are only fed at night and spend about two weeks in the nest. They mature in about four to five months, but females at least probably do not breed in their natal season (Chapman and Harman 1972; Mossman 1955).

Survival: Annual survival rates in brush rabbits are relatively low, but appear to be age-related. Based on live-trapping, Connell (1954) estimated an annual survival rate of males and females combined of only 15 percent over 12 months. He concluded that mortality or emigration (these two causes of disappearance could not be separated in the field study) of young-of-the-year accounted much for much of the "mortality" in the population, with males disappearing at a higher rate in the first six months after first capture (86percent) compared to females (67percent). In contrast, only two of seven (29 percent) of adults trapped in April and May were not retrapped in September. The longest-lived brush rabbits in the wild in the Connell study were more than two years old, and individuals may survive in captivity for more than three years.

Brush rabbits are preyed on by a variety of species, including bobcat (Felis rufus), coyote (Canis latrans), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata), raptors, and some snakes such as rattlesnakes (Crotalus spp.), and gopher snake (Pituophis melanoleucus). They avoid predation by remaining close to brush and brambles and remain motionless for a period of time when in the open (Chapman 1974). Ectoparasites also may contribute to mortality. For example, Connell (1954) found bot fly larvae (Cuterebra sp.) on a female that appeared lethargic when carrying the larvae and he reported from another study by Mossman the death of a male that had much neck bleeding where two bot fly larvae were lodged.

Dispersal: Brush rabbits appear to be sedentary, but very little specific dispersal data were found for this species. Based on radiotelemetry data for brush rabbits near Corvallis, Oregon, Chapman (1971) concluded that dispersal movements were relatively small. Young brush rabbits were repeatedly trapped at the same trap sites and radio data indicated that they never left the bramble clump in which they were first trapped. Radio-tracking of adult rabbits also indicated that they rarely left the clumps in which they were trapped. In addition, the distances over which brush rabbits were able to successfully home were shorter than other species of Sylvilagus and many other mammals.

Socio-Spatial Behavior: A trapping study of brush rabbits in the Berkeley Hills in northern California indicated that males had larger home ranges than females at all times of the year, and especially in May when females were moving the least (Connell 1954). Based on the maximum diameter of movement, Connell estimated circular average home ranges of 0.95 acre for males and 0.34 acre for females. In the Oregon study by Chapman (1971), brush rabbits had relatively small home ranges. Circular average home ranges based on home range diameters were as follows: 0.27 acre for adult males; 0.41 acre for juvenile males; 0.21 acre for adult females; and 0.17 acre for juvenile females. The size and shape of home ranges of brush rabbits in Oregon reflected the size and shape of bramble clumps. The minimum size of permanently occupied clumps was about 460 sq meters (0.1 acre) (Chapman 1974). Smaller clumps may be occupied, but only if in proximity to larger clumps.

Although the home range estimates above are based on circular ranges calculated from range diameters, range use probably is not circular in shape or uniform, but rather consists of a series of runways that directly connect high use areas within brush habitat. These runways may be used by other small mammals such as voles (Microtus spp.) and western harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys megalotis).

Intraspecific socio-spatial behavior appears to be variable and may reflect local resource conditions. Chapman (1974), for example, cites a study by Zoloth (1969) of brush rabbit behavior on Año Nuevo Island. Several rabbits were observed to feed in the same area simultaneously, but maintained inter-individual distances of one to 24 feet before aggressive chases occurred. On the other hand, Connell (1954) reported that females tended to not overlap while males showed relatively extensive overlap. Connell characterized females as "semiterritorial" but did not observe whether they defended territories. It is not known whether aggregations of brush rabbits serve some kind of social function (e.g., mutual predator detection or social communication) or whether they simply occur as a result of patchy resource distribution.

Connell (1954) estimated population sizes of 0.9 to 2.3 rabbits per acre, but population densities can be expected to vary widely depending on local resource conditions, habitat patchiness, natural fluctuations in population cycles, etc.

Community Relationships: No specific information was found regarding community relationships, but as a herbivore, the brush rabbit can be expected to have significant impacts on vegetation. Zeiner et al. (1990) indicated that brush rabbits may compete with other grazing and browsing species for food. They also occasionally damage Douglas fir (Psuedostuga spp.) seedlings, other seedlings and gardens. It also is prey for a variety of species as listed above.

Physiological Ecology: Very little information on the physiological ecology of brush rabbit was found. According to Zeiner et al. (1990), brush rabbits drink freely in captivity, but there is no information about their free water requirements in the wild.

Threats to Species

Disease: Known ecto- and endoparasites of brush rabbits are Hoplopsyllus powersii and Hoplopsyllus minutus, tapeworms (Moscouyia pectinata-americana, Taenia pisiformis), and pinworms (Nematoda: Passalurus ambiguous) (Chapman 1974). Connell (1954) also reports brush rabbits carrying bot fly larvae, which appear to affect their health and in at least one case may have directly caused the death of a male rabbit.

Habitat Loss and Fragmentation: Little data are available on population status and trends of the brush rabbit in western Riverside County, but it can be assumed that the rabbit is vulnerable to urbanization, hunting, and loss of large, contiguous habitat patches.

Special Biological Considerations

Little is known of the effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on the viability of brush rabbit populations. A computer simulation study of the New England cottontail (Sylvilagus transitionalis) metapopulations in response to habitat loss and environmental correlations (based on increased vulnerability to predation) showed a rapid decline or extinction of populations (Litvaitus and Villafuerte 1996). This study demonstrated the importance of a habitat management program that maintains habitat connections and habitat suitability (e.g., maintaining early successional habitat). Such factors should be considered in the designation and management of habitat for the brush rabbit in western Riverside County. However, more information on minimum habitat requirements, annual survival, population growth, and dispersal patterns in this species is crucial for examining these effects.

A radiotelemetry study of orientation and homing by brush rabbits in Oregon by Chapman (1971) provides some useful behavioral information that should be considered for design and evaluation of habitat linkages. Chapman observed that rabbits largely restricted their homing routes to brushy cover regardless of the direction or distance. When crossing between clumps, rabbits invariably chose the shortest distance between clumps. Rabbits' homing movements were impeded by human activity and vehicles and they were reluctant to cross roads. Chapman also demonstrated that brush rabbits show little natural dispersal and tend to stay in the clumps in which they were first trapped regardless of age. These findings have important implications for reserve design. Brush rabbits probably will require continuous suitable habitat because they appear unlikely to move long distances through unsuitable habitat. Small, isolated patches of habitat probably are unlikely to support viable populations of brush rabbits.

LITERATURE CITED

Chapman, J.A. 1971. Orientation and homing of the brush rabbit (Sylvilagus bachmani). Journal of Mammalogy 52:686-699.

Chapman, J.A. and A.L. Harman. 1972. The breeding biology of a brush rabbit population. Journal of Wildlife Management 36:816-823.

Chapman, J.A. 1974. Sylvilagus bachmani. In: Mammalian Species No. 34:1-4. Published by the American Society of Mammalogists.

Connell, J.H. 1954. Home range and mobility of brush rabbits in California chaparral. Journal of Mammalogy 35:392-405.

Davis, D. E. (ed.) 1982. CRC Handbook of Census Methods for Terrestrial Vertebrates. CRC Press, Inc. Boca Raton, FL.

Hall, E.R. 1981. The Mammals of North America. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 2 Vol. 1181 pp.

Litvaitis, J.A. and R. Villafuerte. 1996. Factors affecting the persistence of New England cottontail metapopulations: the role of habitat management. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24:686-693.

Mossman, A.S. 1955. Reproduction of the brush rabbit in California. Journal of Wildlife Management 19:177-184.

Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White. 1990. California Wildlife, Volume III, Mammals. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.

 

---

 

SPECIES NAME AND GROUP DESIGNATION

Common Name and Scientific Name:

coyote (Canis latrans)

Status:

State: None

Federal: None

GROUP DESIGNATION AND RATIONALE

Group 1

The coyote population is common and widespread throughout the Plan Area. It occurs in all areas of the Plan Area except the most highly urbanized areas. The coyote is also highly tolerant of human activities and coexists well with humans unless trapped, hunted or otherwise harassed (e.g., disturbance of breeding dens). The coyote is considered to be a Group 1 species because of its broad distribution and the ability to manage for this species on a landscape level.

SPECIES CONSERVATION OBJECTIVES

The species-specific conservation objectives developed for this species are based upon the best available scientific information at the time of MSHCP preparation. Pursuant to Section 5.0 which includes Management, Monitoring and the Adaptive Management Program, the MSHCP's mitigation requirements will be monitored and analyzed to determine if they are producing the desired result. Based upon this information, the following species-specific conservation objectives will be adjusted if appropriate, as new information is gathered during Plan implementation. The Adaptive Management Program will be used to identify alternative strategies for meeting the MSHCP's general biological goals and objectives and, if necessary, adjusting future conservation strategies according to the information received.

Objective 1

Include within the MSHCP Conservation Area 489,500 acres (50 percent) of suitable habitat in the Plan Area.

Objective 2

Include within the MSHCP Conservation Area habitat linkages between large habitat blocks. Key habitat linkages that likely will be used by coyotes to move between large habitat blocks include:

• Santa Ana River
• Badlands/San Timoteo Creek
• Indian Canyon and Horsethief Canyon crossings of I-15
• Cole Canyon-Murrieta Creek
• Warm Springs Creek
• French Valley tributary to Warm Springs Creek
• Generally continuous upland habitat from Lake Mathews to Wildomar
• Gavilan Hills
• San Jacinto River
• Temecula Creek-Santa Margarita River
• Kolb Creek/Arroyo Seco
• Tucalota Creek
• Wilson Creek
• Tule Creek
• San Gorgonio Wash

SPECIES CONSERVATION ANALYSIS

Conservation Levels

For the purpose of the conservation analysis, suitable habitat for the coyote includes all upland and riparian natural habitats and agriculture. Based on this habitat assumption, the Plan Area contains approximately 985,000 acres of suitable habitat for the coyote. Table 1 shows the conservation of suitable habitat for the coyote. Overall, approximately 489,500 acres (50 percent) of suitable habitat in the Plan Area would be conserved in the MSHCP Conservation Area.

The MSHCP database includes several hundred records scattered around the Plan Area, with clusters of records for some areas such as the Santa Rosa Plateau, Lake Mathews-Estelle Mountain, Anza Valley, Lake Skinner/Vail Lake and Banning/Beaumont. Because the coyote is common and widely distributed throughout the Plan Area, this species can be conserved by conserving habitat across the landscape. Although the coyote is highly mobile and capable of moving through lower density residential, rural and agricultural areas, conservation of habitat linkages throughout the reserve system will greatly benefit this species.

TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF HABITAT CONSERVATION FOR COYOTE

Vegetation Type	MSHCP Plan Area (Acres)	Within MSHCP conservation Area			Outside MSHCP conservation Area
		Criteria Area1 (Acres)	Public/ Quasi-Public (Acres)	Total Within MSHCP Conservation Area (Acres)	Rural/ Mountainous (Acres)	Outside MSHCP Conservation Area (Acres)	Total Outside MSHCP Conservation Area (Acres)
Agricultural Land	168,363	8,542	11,482	20,024	7,319	141,020	148,339
Chaparral	413,488	64,899	207,381	272,280	59,582	81,626	141,210
Coastal Sage Scrub	152,686	47,161	34,555	81,716	26,241	44,729	70,970
Desert Scrubs	9,378	3,675	1,314	4,989	44	4,345	4,389
Grassland	146,869	20,011	22,806	42,817	12,223	91,829	104,052
Meadow	492	0	87	87	18	387	405
Meadow and Marshes	470	174	239	413	0	57	57
Montane Coniferous Forest	29,900	17	20,485	20,502	43	9,355	9,398
Peninsular Juniper Woodland and Scrub	1,082	336	274	610	23	450	473
Playas and Vernal Pools	7,914	3,828	2,923	6,751	0	1,163	1,163
Riparian Scrub, Woodland and Forest	14,607	3,920	7,273	11,193	368	3,045	3,413
Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub	7,149	3,171	2,063	5,234	217	1,697	1,915
Woodlands and Forest	32,167	2,388	20,497	22,885	5,017	4,266	9,282
TOTAL	984,565	158,122	331,379	489,501 (50%)	111,095 (11%)	383,969 (39%)	495,066 (50%)
1 Acres refer to Additional Reserve Lands to be assembled from within the Criteria Area.

MSHCP Conservation Area Configuration Issues

Coyotes are highly mobile, with daily movements on the order of 2 to 3 miles (Nowak 1990) and dispersal by juveniles from the parental range typically ranges from 50 to 100 miles (Gier 1975). Habitat connections that serve coyotes, however, probably should not be used as the standard for other wildlife species because they can move through urban landscapes that would not be used by other species such as bobcat and mountain lion (e.g., see Crooks and Jones 1998). At present, coyotes do not appear be excluded from any part of the Plan Area except perhaps the most highly urbanized areas. Nonetheless, several wildlife habitat linkages between large habitat blocks will be conserved. Key habitat linkages that likely will be used by coyotes to move between large habitat blocks are listed under Objective 2.

No specific guidelines for wildlife crossings such as culverts and bridges (i.e., type, size, shape, etc.) are proposed for the coyote because of their adaptability to urban settings, and wildlife crossings for species such as mountain lion and bobcat also will be appropriate for coyotes.

Conservation Summary

In summary, conservation for the coyote will be achieved by inclusion of 489,500 acres of suitable Conserved Habitat and conservation of key habitat linkages. The Plan Area also is contiguous with coyote habitat in eastern Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange and San Diego counties.

INCIDENTAL TAKE

Coyotes will be subject to Incidental Take on lands outside the MSHCP Conservation Area totalling approximately 495,000 acres (50 percent) of suitable habitat. Of this unconserved habitat, about 148,000 acres are existing agricultural land that may continue to provide some habitat value in the future. Also, of the 495,000 acres authorized for Incidental Take, approximately 111,000 acres are in the Rural/Mountainous designated areas. Although increased negative interactions between coyotes and humans are anticipated in the Rural/Mountainous areas (e.g.,vehicle collisions, disturbance of dens, and possibly animal control actions where coyotes become pests or are perceived as a danger to public health and safety), coyotes likely will still use these areas.

SPECIES ACCOUNT

Data Characterization

The MSHCP database includes 330 records for the coyote. Of the 330 records, 153 (46 percent) are precision code ‟1" (an ‟x" and ‟y" coordinate that allows for good precision in the location), 34 (10 percent) are precision code ‟2" (one ‟x" or ‟y" coordinate or equivalent), and the remaining 143 (43 percent) are precision codes ‟3" or ‟4" (relatively imprecise locations from general areas). Most of the records are relatively recent, with 268 (81 percent) since 1990 and 55 records (17 percent) from 1947-1989. Eight records have no observation date. Data records for the coyote are distributed throughout the Plan Area, with clusters on the Santa Rosa Plateau, Lake Skinner, Sage, Lake Mathews, Anza Valley, and Banning/Beaumont. Based on the recency of most of the data and the distribution of records throughout the Plan Area, the database appears to provide a fairly good representation of the population distribution of this species in the Plan Area, although the frequency of observations in certain areas may reflect more the reporting patterns that the density of coyote populations.

Habitat and Habitat Associations

Coyotes utilize all habitats types and often are found in urban areas adjacent to open land. Primary habitats include grasslands, short-grass prairies, semiarid sagebrush, and broken forests (Gier 1975). Within their geographic range, coyotes are limited by the absence of open areas (Gier 1975). Natal dens are associated with brush-covered slopes, thickets, hollow logs, rocky ledges, and burrows. For example, in eastern Maine, dens varied from shallow depressions to multi-chambered burrows extending 1-2 meters in depth (Harrison and Gilbert 1985).

The coyote has been recorded within virtually all upland and riparian habitat and land cover types in the MSHCP Plan Area. The majority of the 330 records are from chaparral (69 records or 21 percent of the total). Sixty-five (20 percent) of the records are from scrub habitats (coastal scrub, Diegan coastal sage scrub, Riversidean alluvial fan scrub, Riversidean sage scrub, big sagebrush scrub and desert scrub), 61 (18 percent) from annual and native grassland, 53 (16 percent) from field crops and grove/orchard, seven (2 percent) from oak woodlands (coast live oak woodland, dense Engelmann oak woodland, oak woodland), two (< 1 percent) from riparian (riparian scrub, southern cottonwood-willow riparian), three (1 percent) from lower montane coniferous forest, one (<1 percent) from desert scrub and one (<1 percent) from alkali playa. Sixty-eight (20 percent) of the records are from residential/urban/exotic.

Biogeography

The coyote's geographic range has expanded dramatically in the last 150 years and includes the contiguous United States, western Canada and eastern Alaska, north to Hudson Bay and south to Guatemala (Hall 1981). Marginal records for the subspecies C. l. clepticus are San Marcos, Julian, and Jacumba in San Diego County, and into Baja California, Mexico (Hall 1981). The type locality for the subspecies is from the San Pedro Martir Mountains in Baja California (Bekoff 1977). The range of the subspecies appears to include western Riverside County, but the boundary with the range of the subspecies to the north, C. l. ochropus, is not clearly defined (Hall 1981).

Known Populations Within Western Riverside County

The coyote occurs throughout the Plan Area.

Key Populations in Plan Area

All Plan Area bioregions.

Biology

Genetics: The diploid number of chromosome of the coyote is 78 (Wayne 1998). Phylogenetically, the coyote is closely related to the gray wolf (Canis lupus) and Simien jackal (Canis simensis) based on allozyme genetic distance and chromosome morphology (Wayne 1998). Studies of coyote mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) genotypes indicate little geographic variation and the same genotypes may be present at widely-spaced localities (Wayne 1998). Lehman and Wayne (1991) found 32 mtDNA genotypes in coyotes from most parts of their North American range. The genotypes were not strongly geographically segregated, indicating high gene flow between subpopulations. Genetic relationships among populations of coyotes also are confusing because interbreeding between dogs and coyotes, coyotes and gray wolves, and coyotes and red wolves (Canis rufus) is not uncommon. Brownlow (1996) indicates that the molecular genetic studies have determined that the red wolf is in fact a hybrid of the gray wolf and coyote. Consequently the currently described subspecies of coyote may not hold up under molecular genetic analyses.

Diet and Foraging: Coyotes are omnivores, but basically carnivores, and their diet strongly reflect the prey and other food items available (Andelt et al. 1987; Gier 1975). Gier (1975), for example, lists the following food items: bison, deer, elk, sheep, rabbits, rodents, birds, non-toad amphibians, lizards, most snakes, crustaceans, insects, blackberries, blueberries, peaches, apples, pears, prickly-pear cactus apples, chapotes, persimmons, peanuts, watermelon, cantaloupe, and grasses. They also consume inedible but chewable items such as harness straps, rubber or leather shoe soles, scraps of automobile tires, and paper wrappings. Coyotes prefer fresh meat, but will scavenge carrion. Coyotes also can be a major predator on domestic animals and pets such as cattle, lambs, chickens, turkeys, ducks, cats and dogs. For example, Crooks (unpublished manuscript) found cat remains in 21 percent of coyote scats in urban fragments in southwestern San Diego County. In central and southern California, lagomorphs (rabbits and hares) and rodents are primary prey items (Cypher et al. 1996; Pierce et al. 2000; Weintraub 1986).

Although coyotes are opportunistic omnivores, there is some evidence of differential use of food items by age class that probably reflects foraging experience. Cypher et al. (1996) found that pups (<1 year of age) in the southern Central Valley of California consumed more insects than did yearlings (1 year of age) and adults (> 1 year of age). Also, adults and yearlings differed in their secondary food selection (jackrabbits were the primary prey of both age groups); adults' secondary prey was mostly rodents while yearlings' secondary prey was livestock and rodents.

Coyotes also exhibit seasonal selection of prey, probably in relation to availability. Smith (1990) found that coyotes' diet shifted from small mammals such as kangaroo rats (Dipodomys spp.), voles (Microtus sp.), and squirrels (Spermophilus sp.) in the spring to fruit (manzanita berries) in the fall.

Coyotes generally hunt by coursing in open areas, where they approach, test, and pursue prey, but they also may sit and wait for smaller prey. Also, in some areas with cover, they use the cover to allow them to approach prey more closely before they pounce (Murray et al. 1995). Coyotes also may occasionally hunt in packs for larger or difficult prey (Gier 1975). Rathbun et al. (1980) documented a family group of a male, female, and two-year old male offspring attacking and killing a badger (Taxidea taxus). When taking large prey such as mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), coyotes hunt in packs. However, there is no evidence that they select for deer in poor condition as do some other carnivores (Pierce et al. 2000).

Coyotes exhibit hunting associations with badgers in some parts of their range. Minta et al. (1992) observed coyotes and badgers hunting in association for Uinta ground squirrels (Spermophilus armatus) in northwestern Wyoming. When hunting with badgers in brushy vegetation, coyotes were more successful than hunting alone because badgers would flush squirrels to the surface. The badger, which hunts underground, benefitted as well because squirrels tended to enter and stay in burrows in the presence of coyotes, thus increasing the capture success of the badger.

Coyotes can be sustained on about 400-600 g of meat per day, or about 250 kg per year (Gier 1975).

Daily Activities: Coyotes may be active anytime of the day, but primarily are nocturnal and crepuscular (Nowak 1990). A coyote typically travels about 4 km (2.5 miles) during a night of hunting (Nowak 1990). Daily movements, however, also depend on reproductive activities. During the nursing season, males and females spend more time near the den. Daily movements increase during weaning and are much larger when the pups are weaned, probably because of the increased energetic needs of the pups and the requirement of larger prey (Harrison and Gilbert 1985). Human disturbances may modify the temporal and spatial pattern of coyote activities. For example, Gese et al. (1989) studied the effects of military training activity on coyote movements in Colorado and found that individual coyotes responded differently depending on the amount of cover in their range and the level of military activities. Coyotes with high cover and little military activity in their range contracted their ranges, while coyotes with little cover and moderate levels of military activity in their range expanded their ranges. Also, coyotes generally increased their level of diurnal activity in relation to training activities; presumably to maintain space between themselves and the activities.

Reproduction: Coyotes are monestrous, meaning that females only come into estrus once per year (Gier 1975) and lost litters are not compensated for in the same breeding season. Receptivity typically occurs in mid- to late-winter (January to March) and may last up to a month. About 90 percent of adult females are sexually active and 0-60 percent of "yearling" (9-10 months) are active during this period. Receptive females attract several male consorts and may mate with several males, which the female appears to select. Ovulation occurs about three to four days before the end of receptivity. Gestation is about 58 to 65 days. Litter sizes range from two to 12 pups, but some dens may contain more than one litter.

Males and females establish a pairbond, whereupon they select a territory, prepare a den, hunt and sleep together during the pregnancy, and both provide care for the pups (Gier 1975). The male is the primary hunter during the nursing and weaning period and food is brought back to the den and regurgitated for the pups. The territory around the den is defended from predators and other coyotes. Pups are weaned by 8-10 weeks, at which time the den is abandoned (Harrison and Gilbert 1985). At this time, the pups concentrate their activity around rendezvous sites, and over time adult visits to the rendezvous sites become progressively less frequent. The family unit may remain intact until about November, but pups may wander long distances in November and December. Adult weights are achieved by the ninth month.

Survival: Coyotes live about ten years (Gier 1975), but mortality in the first year is high. About 10-15 percent of the pups die within a few days of birth from several causes, including parasitic infections (hookworm, roundworm), accidents, predation (hawks, owls, eagle), neighboring coyotes, the loss of the parents, and general physical weaknesses. By late summer, about 50 percent of the pups may have perished.

Dispersal: Coyotes are highly mobile and capable of moving long distances. Young disperse in the fall and winter and may move 80-160 km (50-100 miles) from the parental range (Gier 1975). In Iowa, individuals traveled an average of 31 km (19 miles), but up to 323 km (200 miles) (Nowak 1990).

Socio-Spatial Behavior: Coyotes typically establish consistent home ranges and exhibit fairly extensive intraspecific home range overlap (Gier 1975). Home ranges may be quite variable, with a range of 10-100 sq km (Laundré and Keller 1984). Coyotes apparently are only strongly territorial during the denning season when their pups are at risk of being killed by other coyotes (Gier 1975). As described above, coyotes may come together to hunt in packs comprised of a family unit or a temporary non-family "pack" of two to six individuals comprised of bachelor males, non-reproductive females, and near-mature young. Their spatial structure is related to the adequacy, type, and distribution of the food supply (e.g., a pack is required to take larger prey such as deer), denning territory, and intraspecific and interspecific competition for resources.

Human disturbances may cause coyotes to alter their spatial behavior, such as the use of their home range and dens. As described above, Gese et al. (1989) found that coyotes shifted their ranges and centers of activity in response to military training activities. Harrison and Gilbert (1985) observed that coyotes moved their dens after human disturbance. On the other hand, range management practices in south Texas did not appear to have substantial effects on coyotes' establishment and use of home ranges (Bradley and Fagre 1988). In this study on an experimental ranch, roads and fencelines did not limit home range establishment, and, in fact, animals tended to use roads and fencelines for movement more than expected by chance. There was a slight avoidance of pastures with cattle.

Coyotes are a highly social species and use a variety of techniques to mark their ranges, probably to communicate their presence and location, and to attract the opposite sex (Gier 1975). They primarily communicate through calls and scent marking with urine and feces; urine markings attract the opposite sex more than the same sex.

Community Relationships: A number of studies have demonstrated interesting and unique community relationships between coyotes and other species. For example, as discussed above, coyotes exhibit an interesting mutualistic hunting association with badgers at least in part of their range (Minta et al. 1992).

Foremost, coyotes, as an upper trophic carnivore, have a profound effect on prey populations, and consequently on the faunal and floral composition of the communities supporting the prey populations. Perhaps one of the most important findings about coyotes, at least in regard to conservation planning, is the impact that coyotes have on the faunal composition of fragmented scrub habitats in southern California. Crooks and Soulé (1999) documented that the coyote is an important component of the southern California ecosystem because they appear to control the abundance of native and non-native mesopredators (striped skunk [Mephitis mephitis], gray fox [Urocyon cinereoargenteus], raccoon [Procyon lotor], Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), and domestic cat [Felis cattus]) that prey on smaller native wildlife such as birds and rodents. They found that where coyotes are absent or rare, mesopredator abundance is high. They also found that high mesopredator abundance in a habitat fragment is associated with low numbers of native scrub specialist bird species. That is, coyotes appear to be important for maintaining native fauna in fragmented landscapes.

Coyotes may be in direct competition for resources with several other carnivorous species, including wolves, black bear (Ursus americanus), mountain lion (Puma concolor), bobcats and lynxes (Felis spp.), gray foxes, red foxes (Vulpia vulpia), and kit foxes (Vulpia macrotis). To some extent, the coyote's range and diet overlap these species. Cypher and Spencer (1998) examined interactions between coyotes and the San Joaquin kit fox and found that coyotes may engage in "interference competition" with kit foxes, including killing kit foxes, but not eating them. Both species' primary prey in the Central Valley southwest of Bakersfield are jackrabbits (Lepus californicus) and cottontail rabbits (Sylvilagus spp.), but kit foxes also consume kangaroo rats and other smaller prey (including insects) at a higher frequency than coyotes. Cypher and Spencer (1998) suggest that kit foxes employ food partitioning, greater dietary breadth, and year-round den use to coexist with coyotes. So although there is evidence of resource partitioning, competitive interactions probably become intense during low overall prey availability.

Sargeant et al. (1987) studied spatial relations of coyotes and red foxes in North Dakota and observed that coyotes and foxes tended to avoid interactions, with avoidance the greatest during the summer when both species have pups. Use of their overlap areas and direct encounters were less than expected by chance. Sargeant et al. concluded that coyotes affected the abundance of the red fox in the Plan Area.

Coyotes probably have few predators, but predation by mountain lions has been documented (Boyd and O'Gara 1985).

Physiological Ecology: No information on coyote physiology was reviewed beyond their reproductive physiology. However, because of the coyote's recent and widespread distribution in North and Central America, it is assumed that the coyote does not possess, nor is limited by, any special physiological adaptations to different environments. Adaptations to local conditions (e.g., arid environments) are more likely to be behavioral, such as restricting activity periods to times that minimize energetic expenditure, etc.

Threats to Species

Rangewide, the coyote is not threatened with extinction and this species will persist in western Riverside County under any reserve scenario. However, its distribution in the MSHCP Plan Area likely will be affected by the pattern of urbanization and fragmentation and isolation of patches of habitat that may be inaccessible or too small to attract or sustain a coyote population. As described above and reiterated below, the loss of coyotes may result in the decline of species richness in small habitat patches through the loss of the native fauna to mesopredators. Exacerbating the loss of coyotes in urban habitat patches is the increased risk of vehicle collisions and any predator control activities conducted by local agencies.

Special Biological Considerations

Although the coyote is not at risk of extirpation from the MSHCP Plan Area, it appears to be a key species in maintaining species richness in smaller habitat fragments. Conceptually, habitat fragmentation may alter the composition and structure of animal communities by modifying several ecological processes, including predation. Predators may respond to landscape features that are affected by habitat fragmentation, such as proximity to habitat edges, size of habitat patches, and habitat diversity. For example, edges may act either as physical barriers or movement conduits, causing predators to move along them and thus encounter prey at the edge at a higher rate. In addition, predator densities (and prey vulnerability) may be higher in small habitat patches, particularly for some generalist predators whose patches of habitat are surrounded by matrices that offer human-derived foods (see Oehler and Litvaitis 1996). As demonstrated by the work by Crooks in San Diego County, coyotes can help maintain native fauna by controlling mesopredators such as raccoons, skunks, gray foxes, and feral and domestic house cats (Crooks and Soulé 1999; Crooks unpublished manuscript). Consequently the reserve system should allow coyotes access to as much of the reserve as possible.

LITERATURE CITED

Andelt, W.F., J.G. Kie, F.R. Knowlton, and K. Cardwell. 1987. Variation in coyote diets associated with season and successional changes in vegetation. Journal of Wildlife Management 5:273-277.

Bekoff, M. 1977. Mammalian Species: Canis latrans. 79:1-9.

Boyd, D. and B. O'Gara. 1985. Cougar predation on coyote. The Murrelet 66:17.

Bradley, L.C. and D.B. Fagre. 1988. Coyote and bobcat responses to integrated ranch management practices in south Texas. Journal of Range Management 41:322-327.

Brownlow, C.A. 1996. Molecular taxonomy and the conservation of the red wolf and other endangered species. Conservation Biology 10:390-396.

Crooks, K.R. unpublished manuscript. Relative sensitivities of mammalian carnivores to habitat fragmentation.

Crooks, K.R. and D. Jones. 1998. Monitoring program for carnivore corridor use in The Nature Reserve of Orange County. Annual Report prepared for The Nature Reserve of Orange County. 24 pp + appendices.

Crooks, K.R. and M.E. Soulé. 1999. Mesopredator release and avifaunal extinctions in urban habitat fragments. Nature 400:563-566.

Cypher, B.L. and K.A. Spencer. 1998. Competitive interactions between coyotes and San Joaquin kit foxes. Journal of Mammalogy 79:204-214.

Cypher, B.L., K.A. Spencer, and J.H. Scrivner. 1996. Use of food items by sex and age classes of coyotes. California Fish and Game 82:42-47.

Gese, E.M., O.J. Rongstad, and W.R. Mytton. 1989. Changes in coyote movements due to military activity. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:335-339.

Gier, H.T. 1975. Ecology and behavior of the coyote (Canis latrans). In The Wild Canids, M.W. Fox (ed.), Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, pp. 247-262.

Hall, E.R. 1981. The Mammals of North America. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 2 Vol. 1181 pp.

Harrison, D.J. and J.R. Gilbert. 1985. Denning ecology and movement of coyote (Canis latrans) in Maine during pup rearing. Journal of Mammalogy 66:712-719.

Laundré, J.W. and B.L. Keller. 1984. Home-range size of coyotes: a critical review. Journal of Wildlife Management 48:127-139.

Lehman, N. and R.K. Wayne. 1991. Analysis of coyote mitochondrial DNA genotype frequencies: estimation of the effective number of alleles. Genetics 128:405-416.

Minta, S.C., K.A. Minta, and D.F. Lott. 1992. Hunting associations between badgers (Taxidea taxus) and coyotes (Canis latrans). Journal of Mammalogy 73:814-820.

Murray, D.L., S. Boutin, M. O'Donoghue, and V.O. Nams. 1995. Hunting behaviour of a sympatric felid and canid in relation to vegetative cover. Animal Behaviour 50:1203-1210.

Nowak, R.M. 1991. Mammals of the World, Fifth Edition. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. pp.1068-1070.

Oehler, J.D. and J.A. Litvaitis. 1996. The role of spatial scale in understanding responses of medium-sized carnivores to forest fragmentation. Canadian Journal of Zoology 74:2070-2079.

Pierce, B.M., V.C. Bleich, and R.T. Bowyer. 2000. Selection of mule deer by mountain lions and coyotes: effects of hunting style, body size, and reproductive status. Journal of Mammalogy 81:462-472.

Rathbun, A.P., M.C. Wells, and M. Bekoff. 1980. Cooperative predation by coyotes on badgers. Journal of Mammalogy 61:375-376.

Sargeant, A.B. and S.H. Allen. 1989. Observed interactions between coyotes and red foxes. Journal of Mammalogy 70:631-633.

Smith, J.R. 1990. Coyotes diets associated with seasonal mule deer activities in California. California Fish and Game 76:78-82.

Wayne, R.K 1998. Molecular evolution of the dog family. [http://www.kc.net/].

Weintraub, J.D. 1986. Coyote diets, five years later at Cuyamaca Rancho State Park. Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences 85:152-157.